Manitoba Hansard — 6 August 2013 (Sitting 86B, 40th Legislature, 2nd Session)

40-2-86b

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Second Session - Fortieth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS Official Report (Hansard) Published under the authority of The Honourable Daryl Reid Speaker Vol. LXV No. 86B - 1:30 p.m., Tuesday, August 6, 2013 ISSN 0542-5492

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Fortieth Legislature Member Constituency Political Affiliation ALLAN, Nancy, Hon. St. Vital NDP ALLUM, James Fort Garry-Riverview NDP ALTEMEYER, Rob Wolseley NDP ASHTON, Steve, Hon. Thompson NDP BJORNSON, Peter, Hon. Gimli NDP BLADY, Sharon Kirkfield Park NDP BRAUN, Erna Rossmere NDP BRIESE, Stuart Agassiz PC CALDWELL, Drew Brandon East NDP CHIEF, Kevin, Hon. Point Douglas NDP CHOMIAK, Dave, Hon. Kildonan NDP CROTHERS, Deanne St.

James NDP CULLEN, Cliff Spruce Woods PC DEWAR, Gregory Selkirk NDP DRIEDGER, Myrna Charleswood PC EICHLER, Ralph Lakeside PC EWASKO, Wayne Lac du Bonnet PC FRIESEN, Cameron Morden-Winkler PC GAUDREAU, Dave St. Norbert NDP GERRARD, Jon, Hon. River Heights Liberal GOERTZEN, Kelvin Steinbach PC GRAYDON, Cliff Emerson PC HELWER, Reg Brandon West PC HOWARD, Jennifer, Hon. Fort Rouge NDP IRVIN-ROSS, Kerri, Hon. Fort Richmond NDP JHA, Bidhu Radisson NDP KOSTYSHYN, Ron, Hon. Swan River NDP LEMIEUX, Ron, Hon. Dawson Trail NDP MACKINTOSH, Gord, Hon. St.

Johns NDP MAGUIRE, Larry Arthur-Virden PC MALOWAY, Jim Elmwood NDP MARCELINO, Flor, Hon. Logan NDP MARCELINO, Ted Tyndall Park NDP MELNICK, Christine, Hon. Riel NDP MITCHELSON, Bonnie River East PC NEVAKSHONOFF, Tom Interlake NDP OSWALD, Theresa, Hon. Seine River NDP PALLISTER, Brian Fort Whyte PC PEDERSEN, Blaine Midland PC PETTERSEN, Clarence Flin Flon NDP REID, Daryl, Hon. Transcona NDP ROBINSON, Eric, Hon. Kewatinook NDP RONDEAU, Jim, Hon. Assiniboia NDP ROWAT, Leanne Riding Mountain PC SARAN, Mohinder The Maples NDP SCHULER, Ron St. Paul PC SELBY, Erin, Hon. Southdale NDP SELINGER, Greg, Hon. St.

Boniface NDP SMOOK, Dennis La Verendrye PC STEFANSON, Heather Tuxedo PC STRUTHERS, Stan, Hon. Dauphin NDP SWAN, Andrew, Hon. Minto NDP WHITEHEAD, Frank The Pas NDP WIEBE, Matt Concordia NDP WIGHT, Melanie Burrows NDP WISHART, Ian Portage la Prairie PC Vacant Morris

3997 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Tuesday, August 6, 2013 The House met at 1:30 p.m. Mr. Speaker: Good afternoon, everyone. Please be seated. ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS Mr. Speaker: Seeing no bills, we'll move on to– PETITIONS Applied Behaviour Analysis Services Mr. Kelvin Goertzen (Steinbach): Good afternoon, Mr. Speaker. I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly. And the background to this petition is as follows:

(1) The provincial government broke a commitment to support families of children with a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder, including timely diagnosis and access to necessary treatment such as applied behavioural analysis, also known as ABA services.

(2) The provincial government did not follow its own policy statement on autism services which notes the importance of early intervention for children with autism.

(3) The school learning services has its first ever waiting list which started with two ch ildren. The waiting list is projected to keep growing and to be in excess of 20 children by September of 2013. Therefore, these children will go through the biggest transition of their lives without receiving ABA services that has helped other children ach ieve huge gains.

(4) The provincial government has adopted a policy to eliminate ABA services in schools by grade 5 despite the fact that these children have been diagnosed with autism which requires therapy. These children have been denied necessary ABA services that will allow them to –allow them access to the same educational opportunities as any other Manitoban.

(5) Waiting lists and denials of treatment are unacceptable. No child should be denied access to or eliminated from eligibility from ABA serv ices if their need still exists. We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To request that the Minister of Education consider making funding available to eliminate the current waiting list for ABA school -age services and fund ABA ser vices for individuals diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder. And, Mr. Speaker, this petition is signed by M. Link, K. Link, N. Sawatzky and many other Manitobans. Mr.

Speaker: In keeping with our rule 132(6), when petitions are read they are deemed t o have been received by the House. Provincial Sales Tax Increase–Referendum Mr. Ian Wishart (Portage la Prairie): I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba. And these are the reasons for this petition: The provincial government promised not to raise taxes in the last election. Through Bill 20, the provincial government wants to increase the retail sales tax, known as the PST, by one point without the legally required referendum.

An increase to the PST is excessive taxation that will harm Manitoba families. Bill 20 strips Manitobans of their democratic right to determine when major tax increases are necessary. We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To urge the provincial government t o not raise the PST without holding a provincial referendum. This petition's signed by V. Wojtowicz, D. Kirton, D. Derksen and many, many more fine Manitobans. Provincial Road 433 Improvements Mr. Wayne Ewasko (Lac du Bonnet): I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly.

The background to this petition is as follows:

3998 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA August 6, 2013

(1) Provincial Road 433, Lee River Road and Cape Coppermine Road, in the rural municipality of Lac du Bonnet has seen an increase in traffic volume in recent years.

(2) New subdivisions have generated considerable population growth, and the area has seen a significant increase in tourism due to the popularity of the Granite Hills Golf Course.

(3) This population growth has generated an increased tax base in the rural municipality.

(4) Lee River Road and Cape Coppermine Road were not originally built to handle the high volume of traffic they now accommodate. We petition the Legislative Assembly as follows: To request that the Minister of Infrastructure and Transportation recognize that Lee River Road and Cape Coppermine Road can no longer adequately serve both area residents and tourists, and as such consider making improvements to the road to reflect its current use. This petition is signed by S. Morgan, J. Trudeau, J. Jeanson and many, many more fine Manitobans. Applied Behaviour Analysis Services Mrs.

Myrna Driedger (Charleswood): I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly. The background to this petition is as follows: The provincial government broke a commitment to support families of children with a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder, including timely diagnosis and access to necessary treatment such as applied behavioural analysis, also known as ABA services. The provincial government did not follow its own policy statement on autism services which notes the importance of early intervention for children with autism.

The preschool waiting list for ABA services has reached its high est level ever with at least 56 children waiting for services. That number is expected to exceed 70 children by September 2013 despite commitments to reduce the waiting list and provide timely access to services. The provincial government policy of eliminating ABA services in schools by grade 5 has caused many children in Manitoba to age out of the window for this very effective ABA treatment because of a lack of access. Many more children are expected to age out because of a lack of available treatment spaces.

Waiting lists and denials of trea tment are unacceptable. No child should be denied access to or age out of eligibility for ABA services. We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To request that the Minister of Family Services and Labour consider making funding avail able to address the current waiting list for ABA services. And this is signed by R. Panlilion, J. Del Rosario, J. Kulbacki and many others, Mr. Speaker. Municipal Amalgamations–Reversal Mr. Blaine Pedersen (Midland): I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly.

The background to this petition is as follows: The provincial government recently announced plans to amalgamate any municipalities with fewer than 1,000 constituents. The provincial government did not consult with or notify the affected municipalities of this decision prior to the Throne Speech announcement on November 19th, 2012, and has further imposed unrealistic deadlines. If the provincial government imposes amalgamations, local democratic representation will be drastically limited while not providing any real improvements in cost savings.

Local governments are further concerned that amalgamation will fail to address the serious issues currently facing municipalities, including an absence of reliable infrastructu re funding and timely flood compensation. Municipalities deserve to be treated with respect. Any amalgamations should be voluntary in nature and led by the municipalities themselves. We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To reque st that the Minister of Local Government afford local governments the respect they deserve and reverse his decision to force municipalities with fewer than 1,000 constituents to amalgamate.

August 6, 2013 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3999 And this petition is signed by C.B. Mohr, J. Senderewich, W. Beattie and many more fine Manitobans. Applied Behaviour Analysis Services Mr. Cliff Cullen (Spruce Woods): I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly. The background to this petition is as follows: The provincial government broke a commitment to support families of children with a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder, including timely diagnosis and access to necessary treatment such as applied behavioural analysis, also known as ABA services.

The provincial government did not follow its own policy statement on autism services which notes the importance of early intervention for children with autism. School learning services has its first ever waiting list which started with two children. The waiting list is projected to keep growing and to be in excess of 20 children by September 2013.

Therefore, these children will go through the biggest transition of their lives without receiving ABA services that has helped other children achieve huge gains. * (13:40) The provincial government has adopted a policy to eliminate ABA services in schools by grade 5 despite the fact that these children have been diagnosed with autism which still requires therapy. These children are being denied necessary ABA services that will allow them access to the same educational opportunities as any other Manitoban. Waiting lists and denials of treatment are unacceptable.

No child should be denied access to or eliminated from eligibility for ABA services if their need still exists. We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To request that the Minister of Education consider making funding available to eliminate the current waiting list for ABA school -age services and fund ABA services for individuals diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder. This petition is signed by F. Torres, R. Mulato, J. Agasid and many other fine Manitobans. Provincial Sales Tax Increase–Referendum Mr. Ralph Eichler (Lakeside): Good afternoon, Mr. Speaker.

I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba. These are the reasons for this petition:

(1) The provincial government promised not to raise taxes in the last election.

(2) Through Bill 20, the provincial government wants to increase the retail sales tax, known as the PST, by one point without the legally required referendum.

(3) An increase to the PST is excessive taxation that will harm Manitoba families.

(4) Bill 20 strips Manitobans of their democratic right to determine when major tax increases are necessary. We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To urge the provincial government to not raise the PST without holding a provincial referendum. This petition is submitted on behalf G. Fox, M. Aisicovich, E. Campbell and many other fine Manitobans. Applied Behaviour Analysis Services Mrs. Heather Stefanson (Tuxedo): I wish to present the following petition to the Le gislative Assembly. The background to this petition is as follows:

(1) The provincial government broke a commitment to support families of children with a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder, including timely diagnosis and access to necessary treatment such as applied behavioural analysis, also known as ABA services.

(2) The provincial government did not follow its own policy statement on autism services which notes the importance of early intervention for children with autism.

(3) The preschool waiting list for ABA services has reached its high est level ever with at least 56 children waiting for services. That number is expected to exceed 70 children by September 2013 despite commitments to reduce the waiting list and provide timely access to services.

4000 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA August 6, 2013

(4) The provincial government policy of eliminating ABA services in schools by grade 5 has caused many children in Manitoba to age out of the window for this very effective ABA treatment because of a lack of access. Many more children are expected t o age out because of a lack of available treatment spaces.

(5) Waiting lists and denials of treatment are unacceptable. No child should be denied access to or age out of eligibility for ABA services. We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To request that the Minister of Family Services and Labour consider making funding available to address the current waiting list for ABA services. And, Mr. Speaker, this petition is signed by L. Rogznberg, K. Makinson, J. Gallards and many, many other fine Manitobans. Mr. Larry Maguire (Arthur- Virden): Mr. Speaker, I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba. And the background to this petition is as follows:

(1) The provincial government broke a commitment to support families of children with a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder, including timely diagnosis and access to necessary treatment such as applied behavioural analysis, also known as ABA services.

(2) The provincial government did not follow its own policy statement on autism services which notes the importance of early intervention for children with autism. And (3) school learning services has its first ever waiting list which started with two children. The waiting list is projected to keep growing and to be in excess of 20 children by September 2013. Therefore, these children will go through the biggest transition of their lives without receiving ABA services that has helped other children achieve huge gains.

(4) The provincial government has adopted a policy to eliminate ABA services in schools by grade 5 despite the fact that these children have been diagnosed with autism which still requires therapy. These children are being denied necessary ABA services that will allow them to –access to the same educational opportunities as any other Manitoban.

(5) Waiting lists and denials of treatment are unacceptable. No child should be denied access or–to or eliminated from eligibility for ABA services if their need still exists. We petition the L egislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To request that the Minister of Education consider making funding available to eliminate the current waiting list for ABA school -age services and fund ABA services for individuals diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder. And this petition is signed by L. Bouchard, A. Cacotare, L. Devigns and many, many others, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Stuart Briese (Agassiz): Mr.

Speaker, I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba. And the background for this petition is as follows: The provincial government broke a commitment to support families of children with a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder, including timely diagnosis and access to necessary treatment such as applied behavioural analysis, also known as ABA services. The provincial government did not follow its own policy statement on autism services which notes the importance of early intervention for children with autism.

School learning services has its first ever waiting list which started with two children. The waiting list is protected–projected to keep growing and to be in excess of 20 children by September 2013. Therefore, these children will go through the biggest transition of their lives without receiving AB A services that has helped other children achieve huge gains. The provincial government has adopted a policy to eliminate ABA services in schools by grade 5 despite the fact that these children have been diagnosed with autism which still requires therapy.

These children are being denied access –the ABA services that will allow them access to the same educational opportunities as any other Manitoban. Waiting lists and denial of treatments are unacceptable. No child should be denied access to or eliminated from eligibility for ABA services if their need still exists. We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows:

August 6, 2013 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4001 To request the Minister of Education consider making further –making funding available to eliminate the current waiting list for ABA school-age services and fund ABA services for individuals diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder. This petition is signed by J. Medina, P. Jularbal, M. Molinar and many, many other fine Manitobans. Mrs. Bonnie Mitchelson (River East): I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba. The background to this petition is as follows:

(1) The provincial government broke a commitment to support families of children with a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder, including timely diagnosis and access to necessary treatment such as applied behavioural analysis, also known as ABA services.

(2) The provincial government did not follow its own policy statement on autism services which notes the importance of early intervention for children with autism.

(3) The preschool waiting list for ABA services has reached its high est level ever with at least 56 children waiting for services. That number is expected to exceed 70 children by September 2013 despite commitments to reduce th e waiting list and provide timely access to services. * (13:50)

(4) The provincial government policy of eliminating ABA services in schools by grade 5 has caused many children in Manitoba to age out of the window for this very effective ABA treatment because of a lack of access. Many more children are expected to age out because of a lack of available treatment spaces.

(5) Waiting lists and denials of treatment are unacceptable. No child should be denied access to or age out of eligibility for ABA services. We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To request that the Minister of Family Services and Labour consider making funding available to address the current waiting list for ABA services. And this petition is signed by B. Labossiere, M. Parsons, M. Stefaniuk and many, many other Manitobans. Mr. Reg Helwer (Brandon West): I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba. The background to this petition is as follows:

(1) The provincial government broke a commitment to support families of children with a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder, including timely diagnosis and access to necessary treatment such as applied behavioural analysis, also known as ABA services.

(2) The provincial government did not follow its own policy statement on autism services which notes the importance of early intervention for children with autism.

(3) The preschool waiting list for ABA services has reached its high est level ever with at least 56 children wa iting for services. That number is expected to exceed 70 children by September 2013 despite commitments to reduce the waiting list and provide timely access to services.

(4) The provincial government policy of eliminating ABA services in schools by grade 5 has caused many children in Manitoba to age out of the window for this very effective ABA treatment because of a lack of access. Many more children are expected to age out because of a lack of available treatment spaces.

(5) Waiting lists and denials of treatment are unacceptable. No child should be denied access to or age out of eligibility for ABA services. We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To request that the Minister of Family Services and Labour consider making funding available to address the current waiting list for ABA services. Signed by K. Karpyshin, J. Carpenter, K. Jopka and many other fine Manitobans. Mr. Ron Schuler ( St. Paul): I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba. The background to this petition is as follows:

(1) The provincial government broke a commitment to support families of children with a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder, including timely diagnosis and access to necessary treatment such as applied be havioural analysis, also known as ABA services.

4002 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA August 6, 2013

(2) The provincial government did not follow its own policy statement on autism services which notes the importance of early intervention for children with autism.

(3) School learning services has its first ever waiting list which started with two children. The waiting list is projected to keep growing and to be in excess of 20 children by September 2013. Therefore, these children will go through the biggest transition of their lives without receiving ABA services that has helped other children achieve huge gains.

(4) The provincial government has adopted a policy to eliminate ABA services in schools by grade 5 despite the fact that these children have been diagnosed with autism which still requires therapy. These children are being denied necessary ABA services that will allow them access to the same educational opportunities as any other Manitoban.

(5) Waiting lists and denials of treatment are unacceptable. No child should be denied access to or eliminated from eligibility for ABA services if their need still exists. We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To request that the Minister of Education consider making funding available to eliminate the curting–current waiting list fo r ABA school -age services and fund ABA services for individuals diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder. This is signed by L. Flores, D. Lloyd, B. Wadelius and many, many other Manitobans. Mr. Dennis Smook (La Verendrye) : Mr.

Speaker, I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba. The background to this petition is as follows:

(1) The provincial government broke a commitment to support families of children with a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder, including timely diagnosis and access to necessary treatment such as applied behavioural analysis, also known as ABA services.

(2) The provincial government did not follow its own policy statement on autism services which notes the importance of early intervention for children with autism.

(3) School learning services has its first ever waiting list which started with two childr en. The waiting list is projected to keep growing and to be in excess of 20 children by September 2013. Therefore, these children will go through the biggest transition of their lives without receiving ABA services that has helped other children achieve huge gains.

(4) The provincial government has adopted a policy to eliminate ABA services in schools by grade 5 despite the fact that these children have been diagnosed with autism which still requires therapy. These children are being denied necessary ABA services that will allow them to–the same educational opportunities as any other Manitoban.

(5) Waiting lists and denials of treatment are unacceptable. No child should be denied access to or eliminated from eligibility for ABA services if their need still exists. We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To request that the Minister of Education consider making funding available to eliminate the current waiting list for ABA school -age services and fund ABA services for individuals diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder. This petition is signed by M. Baisinger, J. Fairbairn, B. Belisle and many more fine Manitobans. Mr.

Cameron Friesen (Morden -Winkler): I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly. And the background to this petition is as follows:

(1) The provincial government broke a commitment to support families of children with a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder, including timely diagnosis and access to necessary treatment such as applied beh avioural analysis, also known as ABA services.

(2) The provincial government did not follow its own policy statement on autism services which notes the importance of early intervention for children with autism.

(3) The preschool waiting list for ABA se rvices has reached its high est level ever with at least 56 children waiting for services. That number is expected to exceed 70 children by September 2013 despite commitments to reduce the waiting list and provide timely access to services.

(4) The provinc ial government policy of eliminating ABA services in schools by grade 5 has

August 6, 2013 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4003 caused many children in Manitoba to age out of the window for this very effective ABA treatment because of a lack of access. Many more children are expected to age out because of a lack of available treatment spaces.

(5) Waiting lists and denials of treatment are unacceptable. No child should be denied access to or age out of eligibility for ABA services. We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows: To request th at the Minister of Family Services and Labour consider making funding available to address the current waiting list for ABA services. And this petition is signed by D. Michell-Arek, K. George, C. Marshall and many, many others. * (14:00) Introduction of Guests Mr.

Speaker: Prior to oral questions, I'd like to draw the attention of honourable members to the loge to my left where we have with us today Mr. Kevin Lamoureux, the former member for Inkster. On behalf of all honourable members, we welcome you here this afternoon. And also, in the public gallery, we have with us today from the Historical Museum of St. James-Assiniboia Bonita Hunter -Eastwood and Barry Hillman, who are the guests of the honourable member for Kirkfield Park (Ms. Blady). On behalf of all honourable members, we welcome you here this afternoon. ORAL QUESTIONS Tax Increases Government Spending Mr.

Brian Pallister (Leader of the Official Opposition): Welcome back, Mr. Speaker. It's been said that government functions like a ratchet, and that means it only goes one direction, and generally that's up. And certainly with this government that's true. The NDP's high- spending problems have translated into a very big high -tax problem for Manitobans. Yet across Canada, other governments seem to be able to address the problem, Mr. Speaker. In Ontario, for example, Kathleen Wynne has recently committed to a limit of 1 per cent growth in spending and holding the line on tax hikes.

Yet here in spenDP territory, not the case. In fact, here we have seen growth of over 3 per cent again this year. Now, to feed their out -of-control spending addiction what the NDP has to do, of course, is jack up taxes. And so this is why we see a proposal for a 14 per cent hike in the PST. Other provinces seem to be able to address the issue and are, Mr. Speaker. So I have to ask the Premier: What is stopping this government here in Manitoba from doing the same thing? Hon. Greg Selinger (Premier): Mr. Speaker, he didn't mention that Ontario already has an 8 per cent sales tax, but I appreciate that.

The reality is this, Mr. Speaker. Our spending increases over the entire time that we've been in office have been among the lowest of any provincial government in Canada, but very focused and targeted investments to ensure that we build a better health-care system, a better education system, to ensure that with this increase that we're looking at here that we build flood protection for all Manitobans. And that is fundamentally important. We saw the investments in the flo odway around the city of Winnipeg and in the Red River Valley in southern Manitoba.

For ever dollar –every dollar we spent on flood protection, we have avoided $30 of additional flooding. That's a $1- billion investment that saved Manitobans $30 billion in i nsurance payouts and lost economic opportunity and destroyed communities and dislocated people. We are investing for safe Manitoba. We are investing for a prosperous Manitoba, a Manitoba where the economy is stable and we continue to have among the highe st growth rates of any provincial government in Canada. Mr. Pallister: [inaudible] explain, then, the absence of any investment of any significance in flood prevention for over a decade, Mr.

Speaker, by that government, Canada's highest spending government, Canada's highest inflation rate, the highest increase in PST hike across the country, 14 per cent more. And this–all of this is hitting families very hard. Now we're coming up to back- to-school time, and the school supplies are going to cost families more. Baseball gloves, bowling shoes, ballet slippers, you name it, it's all going to cost families more. Less money for families on top of less money in families' hands because of the broken- promise tax hikes of last year, Mr. Speaker, fee and tax increases,

4004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA August 6, 2013 higher gas prices, wine and beer, hydro, vehicle registration, education levies and property taxes going up because of that government's downloading, all of that adding up to $1,600 less for a family of four, and every family of four facing the challenge of higher taxes, higher fees and this government not facing the challenge of getting its spending addiction under control. Can this Premier explain, or does he ever –will he ever understand that higher taxes might be good for him but they're bad for Manitoba families? Mr. Selinger: Mr.

Speaker, all economies go through periods of slow growth and recessions. In the '90s when the members opposite–when the Leader of the Opposition was a senior member of the Filmon government, they had a choice to make on how they dealt with slower economic times or recession. What did they do? They slammed down and fired nurses. They hired–they got rid of 700 teachers. They entirely stopped funding any health-care improvements to personal care homes or hospitals, and the y didn't have an assisted -living housing program in Manitoba. Mr. Speaker, the contrast is this.

We are building personal care homes for Manitobans. We're building QuickCare clinics so people can get relief from emergency rooms. We are building access centres. We are training and hiring more nurses in Manitoba, 2,000. We are training and hiring more doctors in Manitoba. And by the way, when they were in office, they put a tax on infants' and children's clothing. We've taken it off in this budget. Mr. Pallister: Well, fundamentally, there's a bit of a difference in double -digit cuts in transfer support from Ottawa and double -digit increases, Mr. Speaker.

This government's seen the highest increases in the history of Manitoba in revenue, and yet the y still jack up the PST by 14 per cent. Actually, it's not a 14 per cent increase on a lot of things, Mr. Speaker; it's an infinite increase, because just a year and a half ago, a number of things weren't included in the PST. So now benefits like life insu rance, which was zero per cent, is now 8. Home and property insurance, which was zero per cent, is now 8. And even travel insurance, which was zero per cent, is now 8.

The NDP cannot spend more unless they take more from someone else, and that's called an extraction cost. And higher taxes discourage productive behaviour by individual people. After promising not to, this government has implemented record tax increases which extract funds from responsible Manitobans trying to protect themselves and their families, Mr. Speaker. Does the Premier understand that by punishing Manitobans for doing the right thing, he is actually doing the wrong thing? Mr. Selinger: Mr.

Speaker, no government in the history of Manitoba has reduced taxes for families or business more than the people on this side of the House. When the Leader of the Opposition was in the Filmon government, the government he called the best in the history of Manitoba, their taxes on the average family were $2,400 to $3,000 or more per year per fami ly; we have reduced those taxes for those families. Their taxes on small business were 9 per cent; they are now zero. Their taxes on corporate behaviour was 17 per cent; they are now 12.

They had a capital tax, which discouraged investment in new producti ve technology and training for workers; we have eliminated that capital tax. On every count, Manitobans are better off with the policies we put in place. We have the second lowest unemployment rate in the country. We are building schools. We're buildi ng hospitals. We're building personal care homes. And we're training and employing Manitobans –second lowest unemployment rate in the country. Tataskweyak Cree Nation Sewer and Water Project Update Mr. Ron Schuler ( St.

Paul ): And this is an NDP party that went door to door in the last election, said, no PST increase, and they lied about it. We need no lessons from this Premier, Mr. Speaker. On Thursday, May 9th, 2013, Manitoba Hydro wrote an email, and it says, I quote directly: From 2005 through 2008, payments totalling $3,926,394.90 were made by Manitoba Hydro on account of sewer and water. That's for the TCN First Nation. My question is to the NDP member for Kildonan: Where is the sewer and water project –the sewer and water system for the TCN First Nation? Mr.

Speaker: The honourable Minister of Infrastructure–pardon me –Innovation, Energy and Mines.

August 6, 2013 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4005 Hon. Dave Chomiak (Minister charged with the administration of The Manitoba Hydro Act ): I understand that in 1992, the federal government, the then-provincial government, which was the Filmon government–that was the government that tried to privatize home care and also went on to try to fix an election–the Filmon government in 1992 signed an agreement with TCN, the federal government and Manitoba Hydro to put funds into a trust fund to build sewer and water. That agreement was put in place in 1992. Mr. Schuler: Mr.

Speaker, I would like to table a photograph taken just in the last two weeks –if I could get somebody to pick this up. I would like the minister to see what the sewer and water system looks like for the TCN First Nation. If the minister would look at the photograph, what he would find out, that after almost $4 million –and the photograph, there is nothing. So far, the TCN First Nation has gotten nothing when it comes to a sewer and water system. How is it that $4 million of Manitoba Hydro money, ratepayers' money, went for a sewer and water system, and to date, Mr. Speaker, the people of TCN have gotten nothing?

Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, this is the same photo, I think, the member tabled a couple weeks ago. But having said that, the federal government, Hydro and the Filmon government entered into an agreement to project–provide funds to TCN.

If the member has any questions about their sewer and wa ter, he ought to talk to the federal government, who entered into an agreement with TCN, or TCN itself. * (14:10) On many occasions, as he's attacked that First Nation day in and day out, I've told him he should talk to the corporate entity, the free -standing government of TCN that's responsible for those funds and for that construction. I said he should come to my office. We could even fly up sometime and meet with the community. But, Mr. Speaker, he ought to talk to the community and not attack them in this Chamber indirectly. Mr. Schuler: Actually, Mr.

Speaker, the last photo that was tabled in this House was of the TCN First Nation Keeyask community centre that cost $7 million and was never built by this minister, although all the announcements were made: $7 million, no Keeyask Centre; $4 million, no sewer and water system. Mr. Speaker, this minister, the NDP member for Kildonan, has failed the families, the children, the women of the TCN First Nation who are the ones who send us these photographs. They're the ones who are giving us these documents. These –each and every one of these come from members of the TCN.

And they'd like to know: Where is their Keeyask Centre? Where is their sewer and water system? How is it that, for over $10 million so far , they've gotten nothing out of this minister and his government? Mr. Chomiak : Mr. Speaker, I was just talking to one of my colleagues, and I believe there's a groundbreaking ceremony up in TCN shortly for the TCN centre, and I'll ask if the member for St . Paul can be invited. And perhaps he can address the community, for once, face to face, and maybe apologize for the attacks he's made on not only that First Nation but on First Nations over and over again.

The only time members opposite talk about First Nations is when they attack them. They attack progress. We're trying to work with First Nations, bring them back into harmony with all of us, Mr. Speaker, and all members want to do is attack and drive them back. I think the member should apologize to t hat community if he gets an invitation to come up in the next two weeks. Thank you. Greenhouse Gas Emission Targets Government Timeline Mr. Larry Maguire (Arthur- Virden): Mr.

Speaker, the Minister of Conservation, under the disguise of trying to convince Manitobans that he knows more about environmental controls than Manitobans, is now telling them to give him another chance, just one more chance. He knows that his recent environmental reannouncement is at best an attempt to distract Manitobans from his NDP government lie not to increase the PST. For example, Mr. Speaker, how can a government that pretends to care about our environment announce a ban on petcoke when, by their own admission, there's no users of petcoke in the whole province? Mr.

Speaker, so can the minister tell Manitobans why he's happy that he's left Manitobans' greenhouse gas emissions 15 per cent above his 1990 promised

4006 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA August 6, 2013 levels and when he'll announce re al greenhouse gas emission targets? Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Minister of Conservation and Water Stewardship): I think I only heard one word. It was petcoke. Mr. Speaker, not surprising; I'm sure they're concerned about our strategy to ban petcoke and, indeed, coal heating. Mr.

Speaker, last week was really, I think, quite momentous in this building when, in fact, on the same day that we were announcing our strategy to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, the opposition leader got up in the House and said that we should consider in Manitoba electricity generated by natural gas. We went one way; they went entirely a different way. I think that's unfortunate. They can stand up for jobs in Alberta; we stand up for jobs in Manitoba. Mr.

Speaker: Sounds like members of the House are in pretty good spirits after the long weekend, but I might encourage honourable members that, wishing to have a private conversation, they can choose either the loge to my left or to my right or perhaps another place in the building to have that conversation. And I would encourage that to occur, please, so that we might be able to proceed with question period. Now, back to the honourable member for Arthur-Virden, with his supplementary question. Mr. Maguire: What the minister missed was petcoke and there's none of it used in the province, Mr. Speaker. Mr.

Speaker, it's obvious even this minister knows his NDP has failed on environmental integrity. Under his watch, Lake Winnipeg is now the most threatened lake in the world. Greenhouse gas emissions are 15 per cent above his self -imposed targets of 6 per cent below 1990 levels. The more he taxes energy users, the higher the greenhouse gas emissions go in Manitoba. So in spite of unveiling this year's restudy of environmental cleanup, how does the minister expect Manitobans to trust his NDP rhetoric when he has no plan and no time frame for greenhouse gas emission targets?

When will the minister unveil a target for greenhouse gas emissions, not just more false hope? Mr. Mackintosh: Well, Mr. Speaker, a very strange question coming from Conservatives that are on record across this country as opposing the greenhouse gas emission targets. So it's hard to take them seriously when it comes to any questions on the environment. And I really –I cer tainly welcome that interest. But, Mr. Speaker, you know, we are all loyal servants of her majesty. That's– I'm talking about Mother Earth.

Surely the opposition can join together with us to work for Mother Earth by making sure that there was support across this province for efforts to reduce climate change, not only to mitigate against greenhouse gas emissions, rather than urge natural gas electricity, and work to enhance our resilience to climate change. That surely is one thing that can bind Manitobans and these legislators together. Mr. Maguire: Mr. Speaker, Mother Earth certainly needs help, and I don't think she's going to get it out of this minister. Mr.

Speaker, the NDP's recent announcement in their losing fight to clean up Manitoba's environment is simply a rehash of old announcements: the coal ban was in Budget 2011, biomass programming is not new, eco–in government vehicles have been used for years, and energy efficient programs for buildings are decades old. Manitobans get the picture: platitudes designed to put out self -made NDP fires like lying about not increasing the PST, weak bullying legislation, forced amalgamations of rural municipalities and high crime rates.

So when will the Minister of Conservation stop with the rehash, announce his targets to reduce greenhouse gas emission levels in Manitoba, or does he just not have any, Mr. Speaker? Mr. Mackintosh: You know, the members opposite may have missed the fact that Manitoba and our government will be the first in North America to ban the use for heating of coal and petcoke, Mr. Speaker, and so we are at the forefront of looking to ensure that fossil fuel burning in Manitoba will be reduced. But, Mr.

Speaker, I understand why American Republicans might have supported the coal industry ; you know, there are some jobs there, some pressures there. But for Manitoba Conservatives to support coal and natural gas, those aren't jobs in Manitoba; those are jobs in Alberta. The jobs in Manitoba are geothermal, biomass and hydro. Will they please stand up for jobs in Manitoba and stand up for Mother Earth. Bill 33 Request to Withdraw Mr. Blaine Pedersen (Midland): Bill 33, the forced municipal amalgamation bill, continues to exemplify

August 6, 2013 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4007 a poorly drafted, poorly thought -out process by this minister and this government. The timelines set out last fall in the bill were never achievable and are certainly even less achievable now. With Bill 33, this government has destroyed any working relationship that previously existed with Manitoba's municipal governments. Will the minister pull Bill 33 today and start over with true consultations with Manitoba's municipal governments? Hon.

Ron Lemieux (Minister of Local Government): The members of the opposition often have made comments with regard to Bill 33, the modernization of municipalities, and we've put on the record the reason why we feel it's important. But I've asked my critic and members of the opposition, if they feel it 's–you know, some changes need to be made, we're open to hearing from them. And we asked them where they stand on it instead of just criticizing everything we put forward, Mr. Speaker. I've asked the critic to come and meet with me and have a conversation as to where he feels that we can make the bill better.

So my door is still open. My telephone is available. Any conversation he wishes to have, I'm pleased to have it with him. Mr. Pedersen: Mr. Speaker, this minister has been told by municipalities his narrow parameters of population base only are flawed. Municipalities with a large seasonal population have told him this fact repeatedly. As well, flooding in some of his targeted municipalities has created a huge stress for those municipalities locally. When will the minister and this government finally begin to listen to local governments, pull Bill 33 and start over on a constructive basis? Mr.

Lemieux: I've had the opportunity to meet with many of the municipal leaders, many reeves, mayors, councillors, over the last year or so. We've had discussions with regard to not only the Building Canada Fund but also with regard to amalgamations. We've consulted with them. We've worked with them. M any municipalities are engaged and they're talking to their neighbours and having discussions as to where they want to see their municipalities be, and not only in five years but 10 years and 20 years. * (14:20) So I firmly believe, and the government believes, that many municipalities want to move forward.

They don't want to miss the economic opportunities that are passing by them. And I would just ask the member opposite again, you know, if he has any suggestions other than just trashing and slashing and attacking everything, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to hear it. Mr. Pedersen: Well, Mr. Speaker, so much for confidential conversations, I guess. I told him to pull the bill and he's still not listening, so. Mr.

Speaker, no respect, unrealistic timelines, unrealistic parameters, unanswered questions about policing costs, localized flooding in parts of Manitoba, a destroyed working relationship–what more does this minister and this government need to understand how out of touch they are with Manitoba's local governments? Pull Bill 33; that's my recommendation to the minister. Pull Bill 33, start over again with a respectful dialogue with all municipalities. Mr. Lemieux: Well, you know, finally, Mr. Speaker, we hear something.

Just like the Leader of the Opposition said, put a halt, you know, to the floodway; put a halt, put the brakes to hydro development. Just do nothing–just do nothing. Times have changed since the days of the horse and buggy went around and people measured, you know, their municipalities by that. Those days are over. Municipalities are havin g some difficulty. We're trying to work with them to ensure that there is economic development taking place in rural Manitoba. Members opposite don't see it that way. We know where they're coming from.

They're just against not only bill 2013 that we put forward with regard to a huge increase to municipal funding, but they're against any kind of proactive movement in any direction to help municipalities in Manitoba. A shame–you know, the minister –that member should be ashamed of putting forward a position of do nothing– Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The minister's time has expired. Amalgamation Municipal Collaboration Mr. Stuart Briese (Agassiz): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Local Government has repeatedly stated that municipalities have the right to determine their own destiny in regard to amalgamations.

4008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA August 6, 2013 My question's simple: Does the minister stand behind his statement that municipalities can determine their own destiny? Hon. Ron Lemieux (Minister of Local Government): You know, Mr. Speaker, if they'd take the opportunity to actually read the bill and go through it, just to address a point that the member opposite made earlier, is that, you know, when floods happen or natural disasters take place, there's flexibility built into legislation to address that, and we've talked to municipalities about that.

If they're encountering any kind of natural disasters or anything that happens that are not allowing them to be able to put forward a plan, we want to work with them, and we want to be flexible enough to deal with them that way. They know it. Members opposite seem not to know it, and they, again, just want to attack a bill that they haven't read, they're not sure what's even in it. They just want it–the idea is that they want to turn the clock back a hundred years back to the horse -and-buggy days. Mr. Briese: Mr.

Speaker, in a recent letter to the RM of Langford, the statement is made: Amalgamation plans are intended to develop in partnership with all parties working collaboratively to ensure amalgamations are locally designed. Key words: locally designed. In spite of that, the same letter strongly suggests the RM of Langford consider amalgamation with the Town of Neepawa. How can the minister even suggest that his heavy-handed directives allow locally des igned amalgamations? Mr. Lemieux : You know, Mr.

Speaker, our government, for at least a decade, have been talking about regionalization, whether it deals with sewer and water projects –we just announced a program in Neepawa recently where the Town of Neepawa embraced a water program that th e Province had put forward. And, you know, again we talk about regionalization.

We're talking about partnerships amongst municipalities, neighbour working with neighbour to tackle not only natural disasters that may affect them but also talking about sew er and water projects, recreation projects, personal care homes and other development that take –is taking place in rural municipalities and rural Manitoba. So we're talking about partnerships, people working together to be able to develop a better Manitoba. Mr. Briese: Mr. Speaker, municipalities have been told to consult with their residents. They have been told they must amalgamate with adjacent municipalities.

They have been told repeatedly they can determine their own destiny. Now the minister is telling municipalities who they should amalgamate with. My question's simple: Why is the minister so focused on disrespecting municipalities and, indeed, disrespecting his own process? Mr. Lemieux : Well, Mr. Speaker, right from the very beginning of the proc ess when we announced it in the Throne Speech and at AMM, we've talked about municipalities working together in partnership.

We have field consultants that are working with all municipalities to try to address the kind of concerns that they might be facin g with regard to amalgamations. We've been working with them and standing side by side with them to make sure that amalgamations will work with them and for them. So, Mr. Speaker, just to address a couple of the comments made by members opposite, the fact of the matter is many of the municipalities are talking to each other and are wanting to amalgamate. So we know that there's a lot of positive things that are going to come forward because of a result of it.

And, you know, members opposite just don't want to see it. That's their prerogative. I know they're living in the past, you know, and the world is not flat any longer. We understand that– Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The minister's time has expired. ER Services (Minnedosa) Physician Vacancy Mr. Cameron Friesen (Morden -Winkler): Last week, the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) confirmed that, yes, there are doctor shortages in Minnedosa and, yes, there are ER closures coming to Minnedosa hospital and, yes, there will be nurse-managed care.

The fact is the Minister of Health had time to respond to the doctor departures in that community and avoid this situation that is right now unfolding in that community.

August 6, 2013 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4009 Why has the Minister of Health been so ineffective of keeping doctors in Minnedosa –one doctor even leaving after one day on the job–and why has she been so ineffective in ensuring access to acute health -care services for the people in this community? Hon. T heresa Oswald (Minister of Health): I thank the member for the question. It does a fford me an opportunity to correct the record. I checked Hansard and I did see that there were some insinuations about why a physician left this particular community.

I can assure the House that, indeed, there were some personal circumstances in that case, which can happen in physicians' lives, and that was a decision that that physician made. What I can tell the member and all members of this House is that the regional health authorities will continue to work very aggressively to recruit. The member opposite does neglect to mention, of course, that we've seen a net increase of over 500 doctors, a hundred of those in rural Manitoba, and we're going to continue to increase. Mr. Friesen: I checked Hansard too, and the member for Kildonan (Mr.

Chomiak) said there's no plans to close the ER in Minnedosa. Now, that statement sounds very similar to the statement of the Premier when he said the idea of the NDP raising the PST was nonsense, and we know how that worked out for Manitobans. There's 2,500 people who l ive in Minnedosa, many more in the surrounding RMs, and they depend on the ability to receive emergency medical services if and when they need them. How can the residents of Minnedosa and the surrounding area have any confidence that this minister can ke ep the ER open when the record clearly shows that they say one thing and do another? Ms.

Oswald: I've been explicitly clear that certainly it is in Manitoba and every jurisdiction in Canada that it is more challenging to recruit to rural and northern environments. It's for that very reason that Budget 2013 includes $4.5 million to increase medical residencies, in particular emergency residencies, so that we can provide more opportunities. It's why we're providing free medical school to those individuals tha t will commit to work in underserved communities. Clearly, we have seen a net increase.

Manitoba, in fact, according to CIHI, has the highest percentage of increase of doctors working in rural Manitoba in the West. We're going to keep working on that. This is in stark contrast to a net decrease in doctors every year the Tories were– Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The minister's time has expired. ER Services Physician Shortages Mr. Cameron Friesen (Morden -Winkler): The minister knows that we have the highest incidence of doctors who train here and then leave to go practise elsewhere. This minister has said that Manitobans deserve access to quality health care regardless of where they live.

Well, last week the member for Kildonan said that it's possible that there could be some service interruption, and he said because of temporary doctor shortages there might be some adjustments to the ER. Now, how should the community interpret the member's use of the term adjustments? Would that be like the adjustmen t to the Vita ER which the minister temporarily closed 10 months ago and remains closed to this day? * (14:30) When will this minister get around to the work of addressing compromised ER services and doctor shortages that are plaguing this province? Hon.

T heresa Oswald (Minister of Health): I'll take this opportunity to correct the record again. I can inform the member that, in fact, over the last two years nearly three quarters of our medical school class are–they are staying in Manitoba. We're seeing more family doctors staying, Mr. Speaker, increasing from 65 per cent in 2010 to 79 per cent in 2011. Further, when there are service interruptions and ERs are under nurse -managed care, people are getting excellent care using the expert services of our nurses that can provide a wide breadth of care.

I've heard time and time again the members opposite completely disregarding the value of nurses in our system. Maybe he got old Connie Curran on the blower over the weekend. Bee Population Decline Further Study Request Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Mr. Speaker, last week when I asked the Premier about a very serious environmental concern regarding crop

4010 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA August 6, 2013 pollination due to a declining bee population in the province, he questioned the existence of scientific evidence on this issue. Now, I'm sure that the Premier has fully capable research staff of his own, but recognizing just how urgent and severe this issue is, I'm going to table just some of the reports with the hope that this will expedite immediate action on his part. In Ontario, Mr. Speaker, the government is already aware and has convened an expert panel. Manitoba should do no less.

I ask the Premier: Will he convene an expert panel to look into the declining pollinator population in Manitoba? Hon. Greg Selinger (Premier): I thank the Leader of the Liberal Party, the member for River Heights, for the question. This is an important subject. The member knows full well this is the first government in the history of the province that brought in an insurance program to protect bee producers in Manitoba to ensure that they have adequate supply of bees for the honey production they do. The Pest Management Regulatory Agency at the federal level is reviewing the science on this.

If he has additional information, which I asked him to provide last week, I want to thank him right now for tabling it in the Legislature. We are aware of the Ontario initiatives in this regard, and I do note that some of the major organizations are still addressing the role of pesticides in the loss of bees in our jurisdiction as well as other jurisdictions, the role of weather, the role of what happens with early frost, all those kinds of issues. We want the bee industry to do well in Manitoba.

We want the honey producers to do well in Manitoba, which is why we supported them with the first ever insurance program, and we are in touch with them through the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Kostyshyn) on a regular basis to identify how that industry can continue to do well in Manitoba. Killarney Lake Algae Reduction Strategy Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Mr. Speaker, it's better to prevent the problem in the first place rather than having to pay insurance afterwards. Mr. Speaker, another serious and urgent environmental issue is the toxic algae overwhelming Killarney Lake.

The blue -green algal blooms have deteriorated water quality to the point where the beach is unusable and tourists no longer come as they used to. It's having a drastic impact on the community, estimated at over a hundred thousand dollars a year. A central problem here has been the lack of help solving this issue from the current NDP government. I ask what action the Premier will take today to help the people of Killarney restore the lake to health. Hon. Greg Selinger (Premier): Mr.

Speaker, the question of Killarney Lake and algae blooms is a very important one, and we want to ensure that there is less phosphorus going into these lakes, which is why we brought in legislation to do that, which the members of the opposition opposed. They opposed legislation to reduce the amount of phosphorus going into lakes, phosphorus to the city of Winnipeg sewage system, phosphorus through local sewage systems, phosphorus through septic fields which are leaking. We've brought in regulations to deal with all of those matters.

And there is a lot of phosphorus in Manitoba because of the agricultural activity that goes on here. We're working with agriculture producers to reduce their cough–phosphorus footprint, including the weather–the winter spreading of manure. Those are important regulations that we're bringing into play, and we are in touch with the people around Killarney Lake of what methods can be used to reduce the algae blooms in that lake, but they have to be methods that are approved by the federal regulatory agencies.

And if they are not approved, that means there has not been sufficient science established to prove that it will be safe and will be a long-term solution. Feasibility Study Mr. Gerrard: Mr. Speaker, the Premier talks about reducing phosphorus inputs, but this is not enough, because science has clearly established that the major source of phosphorus causing the algal blooms on Killarney Lake is from the sediments within the lake and the phosphorus is released during the summer and made available to the algae bloom. Now, options which are environmentally acceptable and in at least one case have been used

August 6, 2013 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4011 elsewhere in Canada include iron and Phosfloc. These have shown promise in helping loc k the phosphorus in the lake sediments and so it's not released during the summer. Will the Premier today announce that he's funding a feasibility study to look at the use of agents such as iron and 'phostlock' to help the situation in Killarney Lake? Mr. Selinger: I thank the member for the question. This is a useful question, I believe, because the search for reducing algae blooms in any of our lakes in Manitoba is an important one. Phosphorus is one part of it.

I wish the members of the opposition w ould support that initiative. This may not be the only solution. If there's research and we–I understand there is some on–under way right now in Manitoba looking at the role of iron in algal blooms. We would be happy to take a look at that research and see what can be done. We have also done a very important experiment with cattails, a natural solution. Cattails absorb phosphorus from out of the water. They can be harvested and replanted on a regular basis.

So all of these natural solutions are ones we're willing to consider, as long as they don't just solve the problem in the short term but they actually restore the health of the lake for the long term. There are many short -term solutions which do not actually help the long- term health of the lake, whethe r it's iron, whether it's cattails, whether it's phosphorus. All of the above need to be considered, and I thank the member for the question. Bill 20 Infrastructure Projects Mr. Drew Caldwell (Brandon East): Mr.

Speaker, our government is making record investments in the building and renewal of critical infrastructure across the province of Manitoba. In Brandon, this has meant important investments on our dike and levee system, upgrades to the Keystone Centre, investments in the Brandon University Wellne ss Centre and Healthy Living Centre, the repaving of Victoria Avenue, the $44-million completion of the eastern access route. Mr. Speaker, record investments are being made in Brandon and throughout the province.

Can the Minister of Finance please advise the House on why Bill 20 and the province's Building and Renewal Plan are important to our continued economic prosperity? Hon. Stan Struthers (Minister of Finance ): And I want to thank my colleague the member for Brandon East for asking an important question such as this. Mr. Speaker, it's never a –an easy decision to raise a tax. We get that. But the 1 -cent-on-the-dollar increase that we have moved forward on throug h Bill 20 is dedicated, every nickel of that increase, to very critical infrastructure that Manitoba to families depend on.

As Finance Minister I will stand and I will present what–transparently and accountably where that money is spent on projects across this province. That is –stands in stark contrast to what the member for Fort Whyte (Mr. Pallister) has said, harkening back to the good old days of Gary Filmon where they cut– Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The minister's time has expired. ER Services Closures Mr. Cliff Cullen ( Spruce Woods): Let's talk about emergency room adjustments a little more. Mr. Speaker, the communities of Killarney and Boissevain are now sharing on care –on-call emergency services.

The communities of Glenboro and Carberry have–con tinue to share on- call services; in fact, it's been over a year now. And, in fact, even over this past weekend, neither one of those facilities were open for on -call for a period of time. Mr. Speaker, this is all in addition to the emergency rooms in the region which have been closed on a permanent basis under the NDP's watch. As a result of all these closures, distances between ERs are now very significant, and this, of course, brings into question timely access to emergency rooms. Mr. Speaker, is this the new NDP standard for service delivery in Manitoba? Hon.

T heresa Oswald (Minister of Health): I thank the member for the question. We know that all municipalities are deeply concerned about ensuring that there's good emergency service in their communi ties. We're working with the regional health authorities every day, Mr. Speaker, to ensure that we can recruit and,

4012 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA August 6, 2013 indeed, educate right here at home more health -care professionals–doctors, nurses, physician assistants, nurse practitioners –so that we can provide more opportunities for good primary care and emergency care across Manitoba. Now, as I've stated before, Mr. Speaker, you may have heard me say this, that indeed we have seen a net increase in doctors in Manitoba every single year since being in office. CIHI does report that we have the largest per cent of increase in –of rural doctors in western Canada. That being the case– Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

The minister's time has expired. * (14:40) Mr. Cullen: Well, Mr. Speaker, this clearly speaks to NDP mismanagement, because we have the most ERs closed we've ever had in Manitoba. Mr. Speaker, Prairie Mountain Health has indicated there are at least 16 doctor vacancies in the region and recruitment is ongoing in Brandon. The system has deteriorated and the service delivery has become very fragile. Additionally, these closures have caused confusion among rural Manitobans. Is this the type of health care that Manitobans can expect into the future, Mr. Speaker? Ms. Oswald: Mr.

Speaker, I happen to bel ieve that the member opposite is sincere in asking his questions, and it makes me wonder, then, why he would vote against a budget that includes $4.5 million to increase residencies across Manitoba, including residencies for emergency medicine. We know, Mr. Speaker, that when members opposite had their hands on the wheel that their decision was to cut the spaces in medical school, to create a sense of scarcity with doctors in the province of Manitoba. The Leader of the Opposition was in the Cabinet when those decisions were made.

It's a little bit like taking a rock, smashing the window and then complaining when it gets chilly in the house. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Time for oral questions has expired. Time for– MEMBERS' STATEMENTS National Ukrainian Festival Mr. Wayne Ewasko (Lac du Bonnet): Mr. Speaker, I would like to rise today and congratulate the organizers of Canada's national Ukrainian fest on their incredible 48th festival over the August long weekend.

At the National Ukrain ian Festival, Manitobans celebrate the Ukrainians' Independence Day and experience the flavour of old traditions and culture through song, dance, costume and delectable Ukrainian cuisine. The idea for a Ukrainian festival in Dauphin came about at a meeti ng of the Dauphin Chamber of Commerce. Dauphin was chosen as the site for the festival because of its historical connections to the Ukrainian community. The founding group was established in 1965 but faced many challenges. There was no model for them to copy, and so everything had to be organized from scratch.

Many long hours were spent around numerous kitchen tables, brainstorming, adapting and revising plans for the first Ukrainian festival. Event organizers had to seek out volunteers to help fill the Dauphin curling rink with interesting exhibits, and they had to organize competitions and games that would appeal to youth. Today's visitors to Canada's National Ukrainian Festival can participate in a whole range of events. They can visit the festival mark etplace, where vendors sell traditional Ukrainian clothing and music.

They can explore the cultural area, where they can find displays and demonstrations showcasing many different aspects of Ukrainian - Canadian culture or learn how to cook traditional Ukrainian foods like pyroghy, which are perogies; holubtsi, which is cabbage rolls; beet -leaf buns; nalysnyky, which is a type of crepe; pyrizhky, which is cabbage buns; kolach, which is paska; and bread decorations, doves, at the culinary exhibit. The heritage village is another exciting attraction to visit where there are traditional structures and artifacts. Tourists can see pioneer homes and the St. Mary's orthodox church.

They can also visit the Ukrainian musicians hall of fame. It's clear that at the National Ukrainian Festival, there's something for everyone to enjoy. Mr. Speaker, once again, I would like to congratulation the organizers of this year's National Ukrainian Festival for making this year's festival a

August 6, 2013 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4013 memorable one, and I wish them all the best as they begin planning for next year's festival. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Historical Museum of St. James-Assiniboia Ms. Sharon Blady (Kirkfield Park): Mr. Speaker, for families looking to explore our neighbourhood this summer, there are –there is mu ch history to discover in Kirkfield Park. Today, I would like to highlight one organization in particular that offers us a chance for us to learn about our past. The Historical Museum of St. James -Assiniboia is a wonderful little museum in our community.

The museum depicts early economic, political and social and community life in the parishes of St. François Xavier, Headingley, St. Charles and St. James. Featuring an authentic Red River frame log house built by Hudson's Bay Company officer William Brown in 1856, a modern display building depicting early settler life and the original 1911 Municipal Hall Building of St. James-Assiniboia, the museum transports visitors into a time long past. On July 27th, the Historical Museum of St. James-Assiniboia hel d its annual Pioneer Heritage Day.

This free community event's historical exhibits, displays and pioneer games from the 1890s transformed the museum site into a time -travelling settler experience right on Portage Avenue. The member for St. James (Ms. Cro thers) and I spent part of the day at Pioneer Heritage Day and enjoyed the great lineup of poets, fiddlers, dancing and some amazing historical theatre performances depicting life over a century ago in the communities that now form west Winnipeg. In those early days, Mr. Speaker, every community member contributed to getting work done and ensuring that the community continued to flourish.

Today, curator Bonita Hunter-Eastwood and her team are also engaging in community building. They are bringing people from the neighbourhood as well as from across the city together to eat, to be entertained and to share in a part of a collective history. I invite all members to join me in congratulating the Historical Museum of St. James -Assiniboia on yet another successful year of Pioneer Heritage Day, and I hope it continues to be an annual tradition. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Roxy Theatre Mr. Stuart Briese (Agassiz): Mr.

Speaker, a dedicated group of volunteers have worked together for many years to maintain the operation of the Roxy Theatre in Neepawa. When the Roxy closed, a group formed that felt there was a need for the facility in Neepawa and developed a fundraising plan to make that happen. Those volunteers met their goals, both in fundraising and put together –putting together a larger community-based group to volunteer staff the theatre. Over the years there have been many times that extra costs of repairs and maintenance rose, and the Neepawa theatre–volunteer –centre volunteers have always rose to the challenge.

Recently, the Neepawa Theatre Centre was once again challenged with a need to install digital technology at a cost of approximately $120,000. This work included the upgrade to becoming a full digital facility, including surround sound, a new screen, projectors and new input boards. Undaunted, the volunteers went to work, holding fundraising events and making sure the Roxy Theatre continues to serve Neepawa and area residents. They were able to raise the needed funds, install the equipment, hold a grand opening for the project in late May, which I was privileged to attend.

The theatre was closed for 14 weeks while the changeover was completed, and the theatre has never looked or sounded better. I wish to commend the board of the Neepawa Theatre Centre Incorporated for their hard work and dedication. I also wish to thank donors and the many volunteers who saw the need and raised the $120,000 that allowed this wonderful facility to continue to operate. This is truly a community effort and they truly rallied behind this cause. I might add that this is the–this fall will be the 25th anniversary of this theatre being run by the community group.

I ask all members of the Legislature to join me in congratulating them on their accomplishments, and I hope to enjoy a mo vie at the Roxy in the near future. I would seek leave to include the names of the board of directors in Hansard. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker: Is there leave of the House to include the names in today's Hansard proceedings? [Agreed] The names will be added to the Hansard. Chair, Marilyn Dietrich; booking, Danielle Arsenault; concession, Don and Kim Denoon;

4014 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA August 6, 2013 facilities, Frances McCarthy; secretary, Jenna Kilburn; treasurer, Audrey Heffell; volunteer co-ordinator, Judy Taylor; sponsorship, Archie Freed; members at large, Leslie Strelczik, Sarah McKinnon, Jaimie Willis Bill 18–Safe and Inclusive Schools Act Mr. James Allum (Fort Garry -Riverview): Mr. Speaker, as a parent of three children who have gone through Manitoba's public education system, I know how critical it is that our schools are safe, caring and accepting places where all students feel respected. No child can learn when they are being bullied.

Moreover, every child who is bullied is robbed of the self-confidence and self-esteem they need to grow as people and realize their own individual potential. That's why our government has introduced Bill 18 which addresses bullying in our schools, targets cyberbullying, requires schools to establish a respect for diversity policy and supports students looking to establish gay-straight alliances. Many of our schools have already taken action in this regard.

In my constituency, the gay -straight alliance at Vincent Massey and the Youth for Diversity club at Collège Churchill are making an enormous difference in creating an accepting school environment. These groups help promote safe, welcoming schools that allow students to feel included and supported regardless of ethnic, cultural or sexual identity. Mr. Speaker, I'm very concerned, however, that the official opposition has spent months actively blocking this important bill. I for one am no longer prepared to be a bystander while the opposition plays games with our children's lives.

Instead I'm using my time today to speak up on behalf of Bill 18, because we need to take action on bullying and we need to do it now. * (14:50) I understand that Bill 18 will be called for debate this afternoon. I hope the opposition will stop blocking the bill and allow for Manitobans to have their say on this important bill, which will strengthen antibullying legislation by including and supporting the rights of students to start antibullying clubs such as gay-straight alliances. A.J. McCormick Mr. Ralph Eichler (Lakeside): I'm honoured to stand before you today in the House to acknowledge Teulon author A.J.

McCormick for her dedication and willingness to share her writings with others by launching her first self-published novel on Thursday, July the 4th, 2013, McNally Robinson, here in Winnipeg. Amy Julie McCormick was born in Sudbury, Ontario, in 1956 and grew up in Winnipeg where she got her first recognition as an exceptional creative writer at the age of 10. She has called Teulon her home for the past eight years with her husband and her pets.

As an author of pr evious works of fiction and poetry and recipient of short -story awards, she draws her inspiration from worldly travels with great sensitivity and passion. As a flight attendant for years, she has the opportunity to visit and explore landscapes, history and people. Her first novel, Primetimes, is set in 20 –or 3010 and uses Scotland as a backdrop for a ' prognastic' farmer. The novel outlines the importance of using time frame we are given to do great things and make the most of.

By setting this novel in the future, she feels it a way to allow people to think about what they should aim for and believes by 3010 we may just have to simplify and appreciate our connections. Since the launch, Amy's book has made McNally Robinson's bestseller list and creating quit e a buzz. Often writers forget what they are important as their art of writing as their readers are. There is a bond created between the writer and the reader. I commend A.J. McCormick for her commitment to this work, her passion. This is a beauty thing of writing. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

ORDERS OF THE DAY (Continued) GOVERNMENT BUSINESS Hon. Jennifer Howard (Government House Leader): Pursuant to rule 31(8), I am announcing that the private member's resolution to be considered next Tuesday will be one put forward by the honourable member for Concordia (Mr. Wiebe). The title of the resolution is Strong Public Health Care. Mr. Speaker: It has been announced that pursuant to rule 31(8) that the private member's resolution to be considered next Tuesday will be the one brought forward by the honourable member for Concordia and the title of the resolution is Strong Public Health Care. Ms.

Howard: I'd like to announce that the Standing Committee on Public Accounts will meet on

August 6, 2013 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4015 August 8th, 2013, at 7 p.m., to consider the following reports: Auditor General's Report – Follow-up of Previously Issued Recommendations – dated January 2012; Auditor General's Report – Follow-up of Previously Issued Recommendations – dated January 2013,

Section 9 –Public Sector Compensation Dis closure Reporting; Auditor General's Report–Annual Report to the Legislature – dated January 2013,

Chapter 2–Citizen Concerns –

Part 1 –Business Transformation and Technology (BTT),

Chapter 3 –Information Technology ( IT) Security Management ,

Chapter 8 –Senior Manage - ment Expense Policies. The witnesses for this meeting will be the Minister and Deputy Minister of Finance and the Minister and Deputy Minister of Innovation, Energy and Mines. Mr. Speaker: It has been announced that the Standing Committee on Public Accounts will meet on August the 8th, 2013, at 7 p.m., to consider the following reports: Auditor General's Report – Follow-up of Previously Issued Recommendations – dated January 2012; Auditor General's Report – Follow-up of Previously Issue d Recommendations– dated January 2013,

Section 9 –Public Sector Compensation Disclosure Reporting; Auditor General's Report–Annual Report to the Legislature – dated January 2013,

Chapter 2–Citizen Concerns –

Part 1 –Business Transformation and Technology (BTT),

Chapter 3 –Information Technology (IT) Security Management ,

Chapter 8 –Senior Manage - ment Expense Policies. And the witnesses to be called will be the Minister and Deputy Minister of Finance and the Minister and Deputy Minister of Innovation, Energy and Mines. Ms. Howard: Mr. Speaker, would you resume debate on Bill 18–[interjection] –just because you asked for it. DEBATE ON SECOND READINGS Mr. Speaker: We will now resume second reading debates of Bill 18, The Public Schools Amendment Act (Safe and Inclusive Schools), standing in the name of the honourable member for Steinbach who has unlimited time.

Bill 18–The Public Schools Amendment Act (Safe and Inclusive Schools) Mr. Kelvin Goertzen (Steinbach): This has almost become a bit like Halley's Comet, this b ill, you know; once a month it circles around the Legislature. It was introduced in December on the 6th, and then on May 6th the government got around to calling it, and then on June 10th and July 3rd, and now here we are on August 6th, a month later, and they finally decide to call it again, Mr. Speaker. I'm –clearly, it's not a priority to them. They call it once a month, and then we have to sort of restart our debate and our comments again.

And I'm not sure why, you know, we heard the member for Fort Garry-Riverview (Mr. Allum) stand up. I wonder if he's as passionate in his own caucus and trying to get the government in to call the bill more than once a month, Mr. Speaker. He's either quiet as a mouse in the caucus or doesn't have the convictions that h e says he has in the House. But I certainly have no concerns about speaking to this bill. I'm always happy to speak to this bill and to talk about things that might have meaningful results for our students, for young people in the province of Manitoba. I'm always looking forward to the opportunity.

I'm always pleased to stand up and to put some facts on the record regarding this bill. And, when I left off a month ago, when last this bill was called, Mr. Speaker –and I have to sort of review some of that because it's now been a month since the government called the legislation –but, when last the bill was called, I was reviewing a study that was published in the Hamilton -Wentworth District School Board newsletter. It was published April 19th of 2012. The summa ry was prepared by a David P. Farrington and a Maria M. T tofi.

And it was prepared in 2009, and it's referring to the school-based programs to reduce bullying and victimization, systemic–systematic review No. 6. And what this study was, Mr. Speaker, that I was referring to when this bill was last before the Legislature, is it was a compilation of all the different pieces of analysis done when it comes to bullying. In fact, you may recall, when last I spoke of this, this particular survey looked at 622 rele vant articles that were published between 1983 and May 2009.

And then the survey, it reviewed all of these studies, looking for studies that included all of the following programs specifically on antibullying in schools, involved kindergarten from –students from kindergarten to grade 12 and used a standard definition of bullying, measured outcomes, had a control group and a possible way to measure the size and effectiveness of the program. So what this particular review did is it took all of the studies that had those key characteristics, things that could be

4016 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA August 6, 2013 measured when it comes to antibullying, and then summarized them and put in a

summary the things that would be effective in having an antibullying program. And I started, in my comments a month ago when last this bill was called, to talk about the different things, the different aspects of the study that said would be part of an effective antibullying strategy. So just to be clear, Mr. Speaker, the

summary that I'm quoting talks about the different things that they found in the review of 622 studies that would be hallmarks of an effective antibullying strategy. So I wanted to go through these individually and then compare them to Bill 18 because there's something that's striking in this, and what is strik ing is that all of the –all or most of the elements that they considered in reviewing these 622 different articles and studies would be worthwhile and effective in antibullying, none of them appear, or almost none of them appear, in Bill 18.

And that seems concerning because we want to ensure that there's actually legislation that's going to make a difference for kids. And we've heard, actually, from the member for Fort Whyte, the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Pallister), in fac t, that this bill could not only not make things better –because it is the weakest antibullying bill in North America, Mr. Speaker –but could actually make things worse. And there's actually some–there's some statistical basis for that, and I'll get to that in a second. But I wanted to keep you enticed and keep you listening in terms of what would be coming next.

And that'll be something to listen for, about how, in fact, the bill could actually make things worse, let alone not even make them any better. * (15:00) So the most effective elements of an antibullying program that were associated with a decrease in bullying, let me go through these now, Mr. Speaker. Now, the first one they found in reviewing these 622 studies was that an effective bullying– antibullying program contained parent training meetings. Now, what this is about is ensuring that you are talking to the parents, that it's not just all student-focused.

Now, obviously, it's important to have a student -based focus in many different ways, but we shouldn't exclude the parents, because parents obviously play a critical role in this, whether that's intervention or education, and I think that the government often forgets that parents have such an important role. They talk about, in their own individual press conferences or news releases, that Bill 18 is unique because it requires the reporting of bullying to the principal, but they fail to mention that it doesn't have anything specific about reporting that bullying to the parents.

Now, why would you want to leave the parents out of that equation? I don't understand, Mr. Speaker. So, on the one hand, the government talks about Bill 18 and they say, well, you know, it's important because it requires that there be reporting on bullying to the principa ls, but they don't have that same requirement to report the bullying to the parents. And I think as a parent, individually, Mr. Speaker, I'd want to know if my son was involved in bullying on either side of the equation, to be frank, because, you know, one would hope, obviously, as parents, that we hope our kids wouldn't be involved in that.

But I'd want to know if my son was involved in bullying or was being bullied. That's something that, as a parent, I'd want to know, and I'd want that to be reported to me, yet Bill 18 is silent on that. Bill 18 doesn't speak to that and to ensure that parents are involved. Now, this particular review of the 622 studies, Mr. Speaker, says and indicates that parents should be involved, that to have a successful program, the critical element is having parental training and parental involvement. And I can understand why that would be.

It's no surprise to me; it's no surprise to me at all that parental involvement would be important because you'd want the parents to be under standing what to look for, understanding behaviours that might be problematic or that might be symptomatic of bullying behaviour, either being bullied or having somebody bullying your child. You'd want the parents to be on alert because parents should, in many ways, be sort of on the front lines of this.

Now, I understand and I recognize that not every student or child is lucky enough, is fortunate enough to grow up in a home where their parents are actively engaged or maybe where they even have parents, Mr. Speaker, and that's a very unfortunate reality of the world that we live in. But that doesn't mean that you shouldn't be involving those parents who are engaged, those parents who want to be actively involved and actively working to try to prevent the bullying from happening to their kids or to prevent their kids from being bullied.

So I wonder why the government failed to put this particular provision in there to have something

August 6, 2013 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4017 specific on parental training. Now, maybe I found out the answer last week, and the one benefit about the government only calling this bill once every month is that you do find out a lot of things in between there. Those 30 days in between are actually very instructive. You learn a lot of things about what the government is thinking in those 30 days, Mr. Speaker. And we heard the Attorney General, the member for Minto (Mr.

Swan), in referencing Bill 219 in private members' debate, the other antibullying bill, before the Legislature right now that actually has some degree of teeth in it, unlike the weakest antibullying bill in North America, which is Bill 18. But we do know the member for Minto, he said, well–and he referenced it in the House that they wanted to study the whole issue around building more before they actually commented on Bill 219, that they needed to actual ly do some research on bullying.

And you wonder what kind of research they did, then, on Bill 18, because the member for Minto said he didn't have enough information to put words on the record regarding 219 because they hadn't done enough studying or research on bullying, and yet he now says, of course, that bill –[interjection] Sorry, Bill 214. I'm corrected by the member for Arthur-Virden (Mr. Maguire). The member for Minto, though, said there wasn't enough research done within their own caucus to comment on Bill 214, so how is it that they know that Bill 18 is the most effective way. And I suspect, Mr.

Speaker, and I've certainly gotten this impression from talking from those in the community, those in the education system, those who would be involved, that there was not a lot of consultation before Bill 18 came forward, that this was a rushed bill, that there wasn't the kind of discussion and research necessary. So perhaps, I think, the member for Minto, t he Attorney General, was being very revealing, and I think he was being very honest in saying the government really hasn't done much research. The government really hasn't done a whole lot of studying on the whole issue of bullying.

That's why they couldn' t comment on Bill 214, and that's why they brought forward the weakest antibullying bill in North America. Now, I appreciate him being honest and being forthright about that, Mr. Speaker, because it goes to my point. So, when we look at the study done, the Hamilton-Wentworth study, it indicates that one of the critical things that should be in an antibullying bill is parental training and meetings. And why that's absent from Bill 18 is concerning.

And I think it has a lot to do with what this government–how they feel; how they feel about education generally; that they feel it should completely be a top -down exercise, that parents shouldn't have involvement in that discussion, that parents shouldn't be involved in the education of their children. And I feel very differently, Mr. Speaker. I think the parents have a critical role. A critical role in terms of –not just when it comes to the safety and security of their kids in school, although that's important, but beyond that.

I think that they certainly should play where they are able to and willing to, to play a more active role in the education of their kids. So I was disappointed when reading Bill 18 that it omitted the whole issue of parental involvement, because I think there is a resource there that is n ot being utilized properly, it's not being utilized fully. And, in some ways , I'd say it's disrespectful, Mr. Speaker–in some ways , I would say that it is quite disrespectful.

Now, again, I don't know that every parent would want to or fully be engaged i n that particular discussion, but their opportunity should exist –the opportunity should surely exist. And I don't know if the–if these were listed in preferential order or order of affect, Mr. Speaker, but certainly in reading this review of the 622 studie s on antibullying, it is listed as the No. 1 thing that should be contained in an antibullying strategy. So I was surprised that there was nothing in Bill 18 regarding parental involvement.

So that's something when this bill moves to committee, if the minister has an open mind to listen to suggestions, I would certainly hope that if there are those who are coming forward –and I'll look forward to asking the presenters. I'll ask them about whether they believe that there should be more parental involvement i n terms of the bullying programs, Mr. Speaker, that that's something we could look at; that's something we could look to incorporate within the bill to make it a more effective and a stronger bill.

But, of course, that also relies on a government that's willing to listen–that's willing to listen to those presenters when they come to committee. Now, we didn't see that entirely with Bill 20, Mr. Speaker. Those members who were on the Bill 20 committee, either every committee hearing or just some of the hearings, that were no; that the government really wasn't interested in listening to suggestions at that

4018 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA August 6, 2013 committee. They laid some platitudes to some of the presenters but didn't even try in some ways; that we saw many ministers sitting on their BlackBerrys, reading the newspaper and not really listening to presenters at Bill 20. And that's too bad, because, you know, even if you have a disagreement, I would say, Mr. Speaker, with a particular position on somebody on a bill or with presenters on a bill, you should at least be respectful.

And we were disappointed that many of the government members were busy trying to break a record on BrickBreaker, or whatever they were doing on their BlackBerrys, but not really interested in listening to presenters. And so I w ould hope that when this bill goes to committee that we would see a bit of a mind shift in the government; that the government would say, well, now we are willing to listen to some different presentations and we are willing to listen to some ideas.

Because I think one of the ideas that might come forward from presenters is the whole idea of parental involvement and how do we get parents more involved in the issue of antibullying when it comes to their schools. And not just parents, Mr. Speaker, there can be others involved. I–this morning when I was driving in from my home this morning, I drove past the Robb Nash bus. It was touring, I guess, in Winnipeg or in Manitoba – I'm not sure where they were headed off to. A nice touring bus though, Mr. Speaker.

And I drove past and it's got the big Robb Nash emblazonment on the side and it looks like sort of a heart monitor or something like it on the side. And I thought as I passed the touring bus that it might now be good to have somebody like that involved, too, a nd to have discussions with somebody who's a recognized expert in the issue of antibullying, who is invited into the schools–not just across North America. I looked at the licence plate for some reason and it was registered in Alberta, so I'm not sure if that Mr. Nash's hometown or not, but the bus is registered in Alberta anyway.

And he travels across the country and he does these discussions with young people in the schools. And I'm glad to hear the Minister of Education's (Ms. Allan) met with him and maybe she makes my point–maybe she makes my point. Maybe having him and others come to committee and give different presentations I think would be, well – [interjection] Well, and I'm glad that the minister now–and she's –we've got her halfway there. You know, so it's because it's –I've said in the past there's sort of two steps to this whole process.

There's the passing the bill to committee, which is certainly one step, but it's ensuring that the government has an open mind before we get to committee. * (15:10) Now, we know we haven't been able to get past step No. 1 because we've never gotten assurance of step No. 2. The open mind is never going to be there. In fact, we've heard the opposite. We've heard from the government that they're not willing to listen to people demonstrated by Bill 20, I'd say, Mr. Speaker.

As members opposite –I know my friend from Emerson remarked to me both privately and publicly about how disappointed he was by the government's conduct in the Bill 20 hearings, how they didn't listen, how they were chastising presenters, Mr. Speaker, how they were on their BlackBerrys, returning emails, reading newspapers, doing anything but trying to listen to presenters. But we don't want a repeat of that. We don't want that to happen again.

Now we suspect this might even be worse because, unlike the Bill 20 hearings, the government has already said on these hearings they have no intention of listening to anybody. So who can imagine the disrespect that could be happening at this committee when the b ill finally does go to committee. So we're trying to prevent that. So I know that the Minister of Education has indicated that she's looking for the bill to go to committee, and I hope she'll give a public assurance that she is opened to ideas around amendments.

That they won't conduct themselves in the same way that they've conducted themselves to the hundreds of people who came out to make presentations around Bill 20 because the government's got a pretty bad track record, and I don't personally intend t o be fooled again, Mr. Speaker. I remember when it came to the issue around the pork moratorium the government said: Oh, we want to listen to Manitobans; we want to hear what they have to say. And we had about 320 or so presenters, maybe 270, around that range, come out to that committee and they ignored them. They ignored them in the committee again.

They were on their BlackBerrys, they were reading newspapers, they treated the public, the people who were coming up to make presentations, with utter and c omplete disrespect, and that didn't, I think, reflect well on this Assembly, Mr. Speaker. It didn't reflect well on any of us as legislators. I think, in particular, it didn't reflect well on the government, because, ultimately,

August 6, 2013 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4019 they should be there to lis ten. They should be there to listen to Manitobans, and so I took a lesson from that. I took a lesson from those hearings on the pork moratorium that not only do we as individual legislators have to be more respectful, but the Legislature as a whole needs to be more respectful to those Manitobans. And I thought maybe a lesson would've been learned from those hearings, that things would've improved when we got to a different hearing, but it clearly didn't.

Clearly, not much had changed, and so I was so disa ppointed when the Bill 20 committee started up that members of the government just weren't going to listen. They just weren't interested. They weren't even going to pretend to listen, Mr. Speaker. They tried to do everything else but give the appearance t hat they were listening. I was disappointed the Premier (Mr. Selinger) didn't come. You know, I know that he was invited or he –sorry, he invited Manitobans to come to that particular committee to come and speak to Bill 20 and then he didn't show up himsel f.

Now, I – realistically, I didn't expect him to be at every committee hearing. I thought he might, you know, show up for a few. I was surprised he didn't come to any, though, Mr. Speaker. He didn't show up for five minutes, didn't come in and pour himself a cup of coffee, sit down at the table, look at a couple of presenters, nod his head and walk out. Didn't even do that; he didn't want to show up at all.

So that was disappointing, obviously, and I suspect that we're not going to get much more respect from the government on this particular committee, and I think that's disappointing because we know we'll have people who have different opinions when this bill goes to committee. I don't know what the overwhelming consensus will be from those who are going to be making presentations, Mr. Speaker, but we'll have different opinions for sure, and I think that we should all be listening to differences of opinion.

There'll be some that perhaps don't agree with my position, and that's okay; that's part of it, and I welcome those presenters. I'll welcome them as gregariously and as enthusiastically as I would those who do agree with my position, because it's not just about trying to find people who would agree with everything you say. That's not what this process is a bout. It's about ensuring that we have a real democratic debate and, at the end of it, that we're open- minded enough to hear different suggestions and different ideas. And that's one of the things that we haven't got from the government.

Now that was a bit of a sidetrack, courtesy of the Minister of Education (Ms. Allan), but I do want to get back on track, Mr. Speaker, in going through the different lists, the different things that were found within the study of –the study of the 622 studies that looked a t how to best reduce bullying in a school context.

So I mention the first one which dealt with parental training in meetings, and I certainly hope that the government will take that to heart and will look at different ways to involve parents or guardians in this discussion to ensure that their kids are safe at school so they feel part of the school and that's something, ultimately, what we all want. So I look forward to the government considering that recommendation. Now the second one that appeared in the

summary of all these studies was improved playground supervision. Now, on this one, Mr. Speaker, I've had some discussion with educators about how this can be an important part of reducing bullying and, certainly, it makes a lot of sense when you talk about improving playground supervision because we know that a lot of the bullying takes place on the playground. Now there are, unfortunately, different ways that things can happen in terms of bullying, cyberbullying being a key one, Mr. Speaker.

And disappointed that, you know, Bill 18–that the minister–probably for political reasons –but the minister talked about Bill 18 being a response to cyberbullying, and yet it really deals nothing at all with cyberbullying–very l ittle, in fact. There's very little measures within the bill that deal with cyberbullying. Now I understand, from a political perspective, why she would try to make that public spin, but we certainly don't see, in the context of the bill, much to do with c yberbullying, unlike other bills before the Legislature like Bill 214, for example, which is very specific to cyberbullying.

But, in regards to the second point that the author makes in summarizing all of these studies, they indicate that improved playground supervision would be something that is critical, within all the studies that they've reviewed, in terms of reducing antibullying. Now I've checked closely with Bill 18, and, of course, there's nothing in Bill 18 that deals with improved playground supe rvision–quite the opposite, Mr. Speaker–doesn't reference it at all, and I think that's disappointing.

4020 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA August 6, 2013 And, once again, the government seems to be not interested in having meaningful legislation that actually is going to make a difference. They are interested in having the weakest antibullying bill in North America and trying to spin it as something else. Now, of course, ultimately I don't think that's worked very well, and I think the government's probably disappointed at how poorly they've been able to roll this out and manage the messaging on this, and that's fine.

I mean, that's –they've not done a good job at it, and I think the public has recognized that, Mr. Speaker, and they'll continue to understand what a weak bill this is in terms of bullying and then the fact it might make things worse, not make things better. But, when you look at the improved playground supervision, Mr. Speaker, that obviously would involve perhaps teachers or others in the playground to ensure that they're able to see what's going on. It's not just about eyes, though, in the actual playground.

It's knowing what to look for because often we think of bullying as –it's quite often a physical response –a physical reaction –but there might be more subtle things that are happening tha t teachers, educators or others could pick up in the context of looking at the schoolyard. So I certainly do hope that the government will look at that as a suggestion and meet with educators and meet with some of the teachers and talk to them about how that could be improved–about how and who should be doing that type of supervision. Perhaps it could be dedicated individuals.

It could be those that are within the school system itself. I appreciated the federal government, Mr. Speaker, coming out with different ideas about having–training individuals within the school system–young people to be involved as leaders within their own school system and to be actively involved and actively engaged with all students to be looking for bullying of any kind. I thought that the federal government did a good job of coming up with an idea and working with an organization and working with an outside organization, partnering with them .

And there are many groups that would like to partner, I think, in these kinds of initiatives. Now I don't know if it would be, you know, the right thing or the appropriate thing to do to partner with a group in terms of this kind of supervision of a playground, but I simply leave it as an idea that when you're talking about bullying meas ures that, certainly, one of the things you could do is you could have an outside organization that's involved in trying to reduce bullying in the school context.

And I think that that's something that the government has missed, and I think it's been a missed opportunity because I think the government feels that, because they are the kind of government that they are, that everything has to come from the government itself –that it has to come from –down from on high, from the minister's office, and it can't be done by anybody else. It's simply the government knows best, and I think that that is not true and I think that that is unfortunate. I'm just looking now at the federal government's announcement–this is done by Mr.

Moore who was then the minister of C anadian Heritage and Official Languages–since been replaced in that ministry anyway, Mr. Speaker, by the MP for St. Boniface, Ms.

Shelly Glover, who's taken on that new responsibility. * (15:20) But I did see that there was the announcement back in early June, and the government did the announcement together with the Canadian Red Cross and partnered with the Canadian Red Cross in terms of empowering youth to be involved and to actually go and help train young people as facilitators –that they would be involved in different workshops and activities, not targeting one specific kind of bullying, but believing that if–you've got to get youth involved from the age of 17 to 13–have them become facilitators and trained and, together with the Canadian Red Cross, an d have them in their schools being the leaders on this, and to look for all forms of bullying.

That makes sense and that seems to be the kind of approach you'd want to look at. It involves young people being leaders within their own communities, within the ir own schools. It involves identifying the activity of bullying, not specifically to one kind of bullying, but trying to stop, generally, the whole issue of bullying and to have it done by youth. And that makes a lot of sense, I think, Mr. Speaker, and I appreciate the fact that that's the approach that the federal government has taken.

I look forward to seeing the outcome of those efforts, and, I think, by and large, it's gotten a good response, and that probably throws this government off a bit because this government is used to bringing forward legislation that's divisive, that doesn't have wide support, that ultimately divides people and causes

August 6, 2013 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4021 people to come and speak against the government. We've certainly seen that in this legislation. We've seen t hat in Bill 20. We're seeing that in Bill 33. I think we're going to see it when it comes to other pieces of legislation before the House right now. But what happened when the federal government introduced their antibullying measure is that it was widely applauded.

Certainly, obviously, the Canadian Red Cross, who is working with the group, spoke well of it, but also educators within the school boards in different parts of Canada came forward and said that it was a good approach to bullying. Those parents of kids who had been bullied, often tragically, came forward and said that that was the right approach. And so you can actually have an approach that isn't divisive. You can have an approach, I think, that's effective. You can have an approach that , ultimately, has success without dividing people, Mr. Speaker, and that's difficult for this government to understand.

And I'm sure when they saw the announcement by the federal government, they probably went, oh, this is going to be a bit of a hornet's nest, to use a popular phrase for today, and, ultimately, they may have been surprised that it wasn't. They may have been surprised that the vast majority of those who were commenting on the particular piece of legislation or the initiative, not legislation, brought forward by the federal Conservative government was widely accepted, was widely praised as being something that was going to be effective and the right approach if partnered with an outside organization.

It'll have some involvement with parents an d, ultimately, it involves youth being leaders within their own schools and looking broad-based–in a broad- based way, for bullying activities. And so there are ways that this can be done in a way that's unifying, in a way that's protective, and the way t hat's productive, and all of those things aren't being done under Bill 18. But it's not too late because the government has an opportunity to bring forward amendments to help change their direction to make something that all Manitobans can support, and, ul timately, I think that's a goal that all of us should look for.

But, on the issue of improved playground supervision, Mr. Speaker, again the example that I brought forward, I want to bring forward for the minister and others, is that you can actually work with other organizations and outside organizations to achieve some of these goals, as demonstrated by the federal Conservative government and their operations with the Canadian Red Cross. And you can do that in a way that is, I think, instructive and is helpful in a lot of different ways.

So improved playground supervision, again, I think there are –they can mean a lot of different things, but it's certainly something, I think, that the government could meet with the different school divisions on, meet with our independent schools and talk to them about the kinds of things that are happening in the playgrounds. Now this would be age-specific. It could be different for different ages, of course, but it is something that you could look at to improve safety for kids, and you could find the different dynamics.

It's probably different in different communities as well, and those are the kind of ideas you want to look for, and you want to say to educators and you want to say to administrators: Well, we think and we understand that improving playground safety is one way to reduce bullying, an effective way. It's been shown by this particular study, this review of 622 different cases in terms of reducing bullying to be an effective thing. How would that work within your school? How would that work within your particular school context?

Now, that would require some consultation, and I understand that consultation is not the strength, is not the hallmark of this government. This government is not big on consultati on. They don't like listening to other people. It doesn't, for whatever reason, it just doesn't fit within their ideology to reach out and to speak to those other individuals who are involved. They think that they know best. They gather in Cabinets, they gather in caucus and try to tell people that they know best about this, that or the other thing.

We've seen that with Bill 33. [interjection] I hear from my colleague from Morden-Winkler about how they've done that in terms of Bill 33 and how they've gone to these individual municipalities –elected officials–elected officials –and called them names, called them insolent children and essentially tried to overturn the results of the last election by saying, you know, we're not interested in terms of how you got elected, in terms of how you are elected to your individual municipal bodies. We're going to change everything–we're going to decide to change everything.

You know, they just decided to go in and gerrymander all the individual election results from these individual municipalities. And that's how they do things.

4022 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA August 6, 2013 That's how they do things when it comes to being top-down managers, Mr. Speaker. So we know that that's how they operate. They don't want to consult with people. I listened to the very thoughtf ul questions from my friend, the former president of the AMM from the great constituency of Agassiz –the wonderful constituency of Agassiz, mister–the newly named but wonderful constituency of Agassiz.

And the former president of AMM, he put forward some very thoughtful questions today to the minister, again, about amalgamation, about why it is that they're not consulting with individual municipalities. And the minister couldn't answer, because there really isn't an answer. It's an ideological answer. There's no policy answer. There's no real reason you can give for not consulting with people who are impacted by your decisions before you make those decisions. There isn't really a good explanation. None exists, other than that's how you're ideologically driven. That's what you believe. That's how you feel.

You don't feel you should have to talk to people. You don't feel that anybody else has anything of merit to give you in terms of ideas or instruction. And that's the challenge with this government. They don't want to listen to individuals. They don't want to listen to people, Mr. Speaker, whether that's Bill 33 or Bill 18–minister has said she's not going to listen to anybody; she knows best. Bill 33– government says, we're not going to listen to municipalities. We're not interested. Bill 20– government says, we don't want to listen to you. We're not going to call for a referendum.

We don't think you know what's best for the province of Manitoba. There's a pattern here. When you start to link these bills together, what you find is that they all lead and they all point to a government that isn't interested in listening to anybody else –a government that doesn't believe that they should have to listen to anybody else. Now, some people might label that as arrogance, Mr. Speaker. I've certainly heard that from constituents and from Manitobans.

Had a great time visiting some pavilions on the weekend at Folklorama; had a great time visiting my own home community and Pioneer Days at The Mennonite Heritage Villa ge museum in Steinbach. And many people at all of these different locations, when we got to talking about politics, as sometimes the discussion turns to, referred to this government as arrogant. And I'm sure that the members opposite, the 36 NDP MLAs, have heard the same thing. I'm sure that they've also heard from their own constituents that the government has grown arrogant, that the government has grown out of touch.

And one of the things that's symptomatic of that arrogance is that they're not willing to listen to people. They're not willing to listen to anybody else. They believe that they know best and that nobody else's ideas have merit, and that is certainly concerning. And it's disappointing and it's not what we would expect from a duly elected, dem ocratic government in the province of Manitoba.

But I think that they would do well to do what the federal Conservative government has done, for example, in this one case on bullying, and say, we're going to listen to some other individuals, some other organizations like the Canadian Red Cross, or there's others, I know –Salvation Army, many good organizations in Manitoba doing wonderful work, Mr. Speaker, who could be involved in an initiative to say, how are we going to help to reduce bullying in the pr ovince of Manitoba. So the improved playground supervision is certainly one. Now, I want to go onto the next point, Mr.

Speaker, within the survey, and–sorry, it's not a survey–the review of the 622 different studies that were done on antibullying measur es and the things that are common in them that would be effective, done by David Farrington and Maria Ttofi. And one of–the third point that they point out that's common in successful antibullying strategies is disciplinary methods, that there has to be some discipline involved in terms of reducing bullying.

Now, this seems to also be lost on the government because , when I looked at Bill 18 and my colleagues looked at Bill 18, what we saw was that it's completely silent on the issue of discipline, that ther e are no real consequences for bullying. * (15:30) Now, we've seen this in the context of different – of how the government deals with different things, Mr. Speaker. We've seen it in the context of the criminal justice system or the justice system that the provincial government is responsible for. We know that the Attorney General (Mr.

Swan) , for example, isn't interested in consequences –doesn't believe in meaningful but important measures against individuals who ultimately commit crimes. Now, of course, there are some crimes that are lesser. I don't want to put them on hierarchy of scale, but, obviously, even within our criminal justice system, we rank crimes as different sorts of things, and they

August 6, 2013 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4023 have different sorts of punishments. And so we know that if you don't have meaningful but measured consequences for those crimes, that ultimately they get committed over and over again by the same people. Now I don't think that it's a stretch to say that it wouldn't be much different when it comes to bullying. That when you look at bullying, that there has to be meaningful but measured consequences for those who are doing the bullying. That without any kind of discipline, without any kind of consequence, if you will, Mr.

Speaker, that you're going to have the sam e sort of act committed over and over and over again. And I think that's why it shows up, Mr. Speaker, as one of the key elements, or one of the key findings, in the review of the successful bullying programs–is that the most successful bullying programs have, contained within them, disciplinary methods. Now that doesn't happen within Bill 18. It's one of the reasons why it is the weakest antibullying bill in North America. And, when you look at the absence of any sort of disciplinary methods, Mr. Speaker, within Bill 18, you have to wonder why.

You have to wonder why the government wouldn't have put in any sort of references to discipline. Because I think if you asked Manitobans, if you did what's commonly known as a 'streeter' in the news business, Mr. Speake

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	40-2-86b
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	40th 2nd hansardpdf 86b.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	cbe6ae50af1f375531c46982fb8bce8d0e085349

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).